Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation

From: Goran Dhemmeog (hcraeser731_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/01/04 

Date: 30 Sep 2004 22:03:36 -0700

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message news:<BsCdne3y3OXI9sHcRVn-rg@comcast.com>...
> "Goran Dhemmeog" <hcraeser731@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b9eccd47.0409292210.3963eeee@posting.google.com...
> > "George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message
> news:<VqKdnZg8_Lfo7cbcRVn-vw@comcast.com>...
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Coopman was kind enough to confirm my result independently,
> > > so I know the equation is correct.
> >
> > As I said in the other post: I think that asking for assistant
> > honestly is a credit to you.
>
> [Hammmond]
> I'm not interested in your asinine attempts at spin.

No, I was trying to compliment you. But as you will. My apologies for
trying to praise you.

> > > > But
> > > > please note that if Var{X}\=Var{Y} then Corr{X,XYZ}\=Corr{Y,XYZ},
> > > > which is evident from the formula above. Why should the case of
> > > > Var{X}=Var{Y}=Var{Z} be so universal that it proves all the factor
> > > > analysis in psychometry?
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Secondly, Psychometry uses (universally) "Z-scored" variables
> > > with zero mean and unit variance, so Var(X)=Var(Y)=Var(Z)
> > > IDENTICALLY. the Variances are ALWAYS the same in
> > > Psychometry.
> >
>
> Psychometry tests are invariably "Z-scored".

Really? If you say so George, but we were talking about the box
problem. You snipped my definitions that you contested: X is a random
variable with mean and variance what it will, but the transformed X'
(different from X <- no prime, see) has mean zero and variance 1. When
you analyse a single variable, it may be permissible to normalize it,
but if you want to say something about dependencies of several
variables, freedoms with normalization are much more limited (see
example below).

> If in this expample you want to
> > normalize E{X} = 1, you cannot simultaneously normalize E{Y} and E{Z}
>
> [Hammond]
> We are talking about "Psychometry" not Thurstone's box problem.
> I'm simply pointing out THAT all variables (Factors) in Psychometry
> hve Mean=0 and Var=1 (they are Z-scored).
> > (same measure stick in all dimension). Also you misunderstand the
> > meaning of z-score. If X' and Y' are z-scored (E{X'}=E{Y'}=1 and
> > Var{X'}Var{Y'}=1) then Corr{X,Y}=Cov{X',Y'}, nothing else. I am the
> > one who told you what z-score is after you smacked me with your
> > "angles from correlation" when I wanted to use covariances because of
> > the simpler algebraic form.
>
> [Hammond]
> You're fulla *** to. the MEAN of a "standardized random variable"
> is ZERO, not ONE.

Yes, E{X}=0, I confused this with your earlier assumptions, but now
you missed the point. Let me illustrate: if X and Y are random
variables of length (expressed in cm), and E{X}=Var{X}=2.54 and
E{Y}=5.08, Var{Y}=7.62. Then you could notice that if you use inches
instead (1" = 2.54cm), then E{X'}=Var{X'}=1, but E{Y'}=2, Var{Y'}=3. I
allow you one freedom only: you can choose the measurestick, but
everything else comes with a price.

> > > FURTHERMORE the human brain does not operate on simple
> > > equations like (x+y) or (xyz) etc. So none of the correlations in
> > > Psychometry are "zero because of simple algebra considerations".
> > > Thurstone was a genius, and invented the "Box Problem" because
> > > he INTUITIVELY divined that ultimately the so called "Structural
> > > Model of Personality" would turn out to be a "Box", and history
> > > has proven him right (Hammond 1994).
> >
> > If human brain does not operate with these equations (agreed very
> > strongly) this model is useless for prooving that there is some sort
> > of a box, with symmetry axes and all, in the psychometry space.
>
> [Hammond]
> WRONG. I'm not interested in your pathetic amateur opinions.
> Thurstone was a PSYCHOLOGIST and he made up the BOX
> PROBLEM to illustrate Psychometry.

Wrong?! So no matter what the functions are in the brain, you can
still assume they are linear.

> > > > Even if Var{X}=Var{Y} the angles still do not
> > > > match to the simple drawing in the book. You cannot pass that simply
> > > > by references to symmetry, when actually the dependencies of the
> > > > function XYZ cannot be plotted in this space as a single straight
> > > > line!
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > I just told you the equation "xyz" has nothing to do with the human
> > > brain. It is a symmetry in a simple "Box Problem", but there are
> > > other more complex geometric/neuropsychological reason producing
> > > the "Box" in Psychometry.... namely that the brain is composed of 8
> > > octant lobes, and this is why Personality shows up in Psychometry
> > > space as a "cube".
> >
> > Neither does this discussion, at present, have anything to do with the
> > human brain.
>
> [Hammond]
> amateur gibberish.

Gee, I could have sworn that we were talking about the Thurstones box
problem.

> > May I remind you that this is about your proof that the
> > 13 axes of restricted rotational symmetry of the cube appear as
> > eigenvectors of the correlation matrix of the box problem, which we
> > are still waiting for ...
>
> [Hammond]
> the 13 symmetry axes have other porperties besides simply
> being "rotational symmetry" axes... if you were a a physicist you
> would know that.

I did not say they do not have. How are these other properties
relevant here?

Can we now see your proof that the 13 axes of restricted rotational
symmetry of the cube appear as eigenvectors of the correlation matrix
of the box problem?

Quantcast